More Americans View Socialism As Positive Than View Fox News

Throughout much of the last four years, Fox News, and the broader conservative media noise machine, invested incalculable hours yammering about the alleged socialist leanings of President Obama and Democrats in general. It became an obsession that infected even previously sedate Republican politicians as they rushed to placate radical elements of their party who are convinced that Obama is a Manchurian president sent by foreign enemies to hand America over to communist tyrants. And now that the election is over, Fox persists in tagging the President with a label they believe has derogatory implications.

The first problem with this characterization is that it is patently untrue. Obama has presided over an administration that has been nothing but positive from the perspective of hardcore capitalists. The stock market doubled in his first term. He has appointed numerous Wall Street refugees to his cabinet and staff. Trade has increased. Corporate taxes are near an all time low. If Obama is a socialist, he is very bad at it.

But more importantly, Americans who were bombarded with the campaign cacophony of Obama’s leftist conspiracy were undeterred and voted for him anyway. That could imply that the American people endorsed the socialism that they were told Obama represents. And that wouldn’t be far from the truth. The United States has abundant policies and institutions that are rooted in socialist philosophy. They are some of the most beloved and trusted institutions our government provides, including Social Security, Medicare, the Veteran’s Administration, and virtually every public works and infrastructure project managed by both federal and local agencies.

The poll referenced above on Fox Nation was conducted by Gallup. As usual, the Fox Nationalists did not link to the actual poll, but to a partisan analysis of it. They certainly wouldn’t want to expose their audience to any real data. The survey found that Americans are quite fond of small business, free enterprise, and entrepreneurs, in almost equal numbers among Democrats and Republicans and across the ideological spectrum. The divergence came with respect to capitalism, big business, and the federal government. These results should not surprise anyone, knowing that the GOP is proud of their favoritism toward the wealthy and giant, multinational corporatism. And why wouldn’t Democrats feel favorably toward a federal government presided over by a Democrat?

What may come as a surprise to some is that approximately four-in-ten Americans view socialism positively. That number includes about a quarter of both Republicans and conservatives. That’s an indication that the American people have a fairly enlightened view of the political and economic realities in this country. Although a small majority still have a kneejerk ignorance that shapes their views. The President would do well to adjust his agenda to more accurately reflect the will of the people.

The funny thing about Fox’s presentation of the data in the Gallup poll is that, according to the Pew Reserach Center, only “about one-in-five Americans (21%) say they regularly watch Fox News.” That means that the number of Americans who view socialism positively (39%) is nearly double the number who view Fox (21%). That’s an important fact to keep in mind the next time Fox tries to present itself as the voice of the people. It is decidedly not representative of the views of most Americans. And it’s evidence that the American people are smarter than Fox gives them credit for.

[Update:] Sarah Palin weighed in on the creeping threat of socialism tonight as a guest on Hannity for a segment titled: Socialism Rising. Her trademark “Word Salad” rambling included this endlessly incoherent run-on sentence that never gets around to explaining why she thinks Obama is a socialist:

“He believes in these failed socialist policies and I say that not to personally condemn our president, but I say it because I face reality, and I see what’s going on and I see the path that we are on, and the fact that Barack Obama has not had a budget for the four years he’s been in office and not been worried about it and continues to spend recklessly other people’s money and that is a sign of that idea of loving socialism.”

Of course, Palin would never personally condemn the President she once accused of “palling around with terrorists.” After all, by facing reality she can see Russia from her house. So she knows all too well the evils of loving socialism. She just doesn’t understand democracy or respect the 39% of Americans who are better educated than she is about the meaning of socialism and how it has contributed to the nation’s general welfare as spelled out in the US Constitution.

Funny, I do agree with you that the citizens of this country are getting much more comfortable with relinqishing their freedoms and their property because they do want socialism – at least some form of it, the election proved that. what I find most humorous is this quote from you in your article ” That’s an indication that the American people have a fairly enlightened view of the political and economic realities in this country”

This coming from a resident of a bankrupt state with several bankrupt cities – you are a laugh riot. This is what passes for enlightened??? I do admire your devotion to failing economic systems – I hope you take many of your followers down with you, which would be doing mankind a favor.

If you think that socialism is about “relinqishing(sic) their freedoms and their property”, then you clearly don’t know what the definition of “socialism” is.

Socialism is simply the view that tax money should be pooled for the common good. That society as a whole benefits everyone, and as a result of that we all owe a debt to that society, which we pay in the form of taxes which then go back into further improving it through funding education, law enforcement, emergency services, and the like.

What you’re thinking of is communism, which is a view that calls for the elimination of private property, and which has been the driving force behind some truly terrible acts against innocent people all over the world. Nobody here is saying, “hey guys, let’s all go 100% communist, woooo!” What they are saying, however, is that socialism works. It’s worked in Scandinavia for decades, creating the highest standards of living on earth in the process.

Meanwhile, over here we have people going into financial ruin just because they needed to stay in the hospital overnight. Personally, I’d go for the system that tries to make sure everyone gets a fair shot, regardless how much money they make.

No, I know exactly what I’m thinking of – socialism! Exactly where does tax money come from? – you, me and anyone else who produces in this society – therefore to get enough money to “pool” together, you tax it from producing individuals – not the poor loser who gets some of my money in his tax credits for doing nothing. When you take from me or anyone else you deny me my right to do what I want with MY money – or at least some part of my money. Piss on your “debt” to society – we aren’t criminals. If we are left to make our choices on our own, society would be just fine and the generosity of the people would be much greater because they would have much more to give and have always been generous.
I’m fine with paying some tax for a just and limited government, just not this bloated, welfare style economy we have now. Fortunately it won’t be able to continue anyway, so I’ll get my wish eventually.

What the hell are you talking about – socialism is NOT a monetary system. We have a managed monetary system through a central bank – the Federal Reserve. And our money is FIAT – so it does magically appear out of thin air. True free enterprise and open free markets, which we also don’t have and haven’t had for some time has NOTHING to do with socialism, but as soon as the government gets its dirty hand involved it, socialism follows closely.
One thing I will agree on is that corporations do try to socialize loses only while keeping all profits – you can’t have it both ways in my opinion. Clearly you must be living in fantasy land with your beliefs in socialism – everyone has a say, yeah right. You must be a college student who hasn’t actually done anything of value yet.

Wow, you are a sucker. Money is not printed to just give to the people, it’s created through debt – much of it government. Most of that printed fiat doesn’t end up with you or me, that is a dream of a child that doesn’t know any better. And it’s taken from you by inflation.

That’s stupid. Without the government, you wouldn’t have titles to land and cars. Without government, there wouldn’t be anyone stopping someone from taking your stuff. Without government, there wouldn’t be private property – there would just be the strong (who own everything) and the rest of us.

It’s funny how leftists feel those who just don’t subscribe to the supremacy of the state in our personal and/or economic lives are somehow uneducated. I’m very happy with being called randian in my beliefs of how society should be – I have yet to hear or read anything here that would change my mind. I am a supply sider too but mostly because I love the freedom to do as I please with MY money.
Calling the money I earn MINE appears to have the same effect with you leftist that a cross has on a vampire.
I’m sure Mark will jump in soon, he doesn’t like leftist looking too crazy so he’ll finally chime in to say that we should refrain from getting off the topic of the article – which is “why I hate Fox News”

Money wouldn’t exist without an authority to back it. And it wouldn’t have the value it has today – able to buy something from coast to coast, and across the globe – without government backing.

Money you earn required roads, economic/safety/etc regulation, police, fire, health departments, investment in infrastructure and research, laws and courts, etc. All of that derived from We the People, aka the United States Government.

If you want to earn money without all that, there is a country or two that doesn’t have those benefits or costs. It’s a free country, emigrate.

This is just sad commentary…Socialism is one of the biggest evils perpetrated against mankind. It destroys human innovation and only leads to poverty and starvation…I fear Ameriaca is on the brink of a new Dark Age…With that said, South East Asia is looking like a real nice place to migrate to (they actually embrace capitalism and are thriving!).

They don’t know the difference between anything, not even their side and the other side. They ascribe the other side as doing things their own guys are doing and take their guys at a word, and never bother to check on actions later.

Who else would vote for a pol who campaigned on anti-corporate subsidies, but voted for more subsidies? Campaigned for the evils of socialized medicine yet also on keep-yer-gub-off-my-Medicare and ‘they cut Medicare!’ while simultaneously having voted to eliminate Medicare?

Biggest evils? Really? Someone should tell that to Denmark, or any of the other actual Socialist country’s… I mean how many times have Denmark been voted one of the happiest places on earth? What, you don’t like giving 50% of your money to the government to pay for education, health, and housing. Let alone all the other stuff such as emergency services. The US has a what like 35% taxes, and we still pay for education, and health care out of our pockets. So, I guess you are angry at Denmark where you can go to school as long as you like (college etc), get medical care where ever in the world (yes, they send a nurse to other country’s to help out if it is like broken leg etc), housing if you are in need, without paying out of your pocket. Oh and usually the housing issue is more for the elderly and military vets… but you know the “moochers”.

So, please tell me how the US hates capitalism? Everyone in the GOP and such keep ranting about it but never give specifics. Not like we have no loop holes for corporations, and tax them at a flat 35 or 40%. Not like they are not been getting record profits for the last 10 years or so. Plus getting government subsidized funds. Don’t believe it, the oil company’s many years ago at 55 bucks a barrel stated they did not need the funds anymore, but 5 years later or so when your talking 100 bucks a barrel they do need it? Really… And do not give the spiel about job creators… taxes on a person has nothing to do with taxes on a business. Let alone 300% increase in board members salaries on these larger corp’s.. And yes I do personally know a few small business owners.

But please, if you feel that strongly about it, file your paperwork to immigrate to another country. A quick Google/Yahoo search will give you the way to point you to either the closest consulate(s) or where to go for the paperwork to file out to begin your move.

I’m a fan of socialism. I love all these roads i can drive on, i also am really in favor of the infrastructure of sewers and clean water that the government provided to every community in this country. I think the founders were brilliant in providing for the general welfare. Sure, someone can get filthy rich following a capitalist view, but i just don’t have the heart to kick people to the curb to “get mine”

The last time I checked, most of those things are provided at the local level – yes by local government. Sanitary, water – all done at the local level by something much smaller than a federal government. Clean water didn’t make it to my door because the government made it happen, it happened because a private water company – in my area – built a network to supply clean water. I pay and it comes to me and someone is making money – awesome. and nobody is being poisoned, how did that happen??? yes, there are clean water rules that dictate some of it and that is good, but don’t give me that idiocy that the feds make it happen.
Sewer – built and owned by my local government with our local $$, not the feds. We pay our local people to build it, run it, etc. and we’re fine. We control our local politicians much better than those clowns in DC.
Same with the roads – not interstates which are nice – but all local roads, built and paid for by me and my fellow local tax payers – no feds the last time I checked. Asphalt and concrete made locally by private companies and they’re making money. Engineered locally, not at some federal department. I’ve built a lot and the federal government hasn’t provided one shread of help nor was it needed.

I spent the last 20 years building water towers for local systems and cities, towns, and rural services. The one thing they ALL had in common was that FEDERAL money paid for 80% of the bill. When a local government hires an engineering firm to form a plan to expand any water system, the first job for the engineering firm is to find FEDERAL GRANTS that will pay for it. In the case of roads, perhaps the engineers find grants form the STATE, of course states also receieve FED funds for infrastructure, in other words you really didn’t build that, we all built that.

So you’re saying that these locals couldn’t do it themselves? I don’t remember a federal guy here managing my work for me, but I don’t work for anyone like that or anything related to federal government. Sorry, you can try to take credit for the collective, but it won’t work. Paying and doing are very different – you would make a great bureaucrat. We did NOT all build anything – we may have paid for it, but the real work was done by individuals and will continue to be done by individuals – regardless as to the condition of the federal government. I won’t share any credit for anything I built – not with you or any other taxpayer. I will share with those who actually did something, not some blogger who has delusions of grandeur.

Jeez, you are just incoherent now. The fact that the federal government paid for it is precisely what this debate is about – the pooling of resources for the benefit of the greater society. That’s what taxes are.

I had to go away for a break, it’s me against this liberal mob. I don’t give a shit what you think a “great” society is – it’s not in my opinion a place where because a government pays for something, somehow those who did the work don’t get credit – the state gets it, which is what that commie sandman suggests. If I’m sounding incoherent, I’m getting worn down by all the statists vs. someone who just wants to keep what’s his and not be a slave like all you want.

It sounds like you’re saying socialism is OK for local governments, you pinko.

But I also need to point out that your assertions about water, air, and roads are completely wrong. These resources are all managed by federal rules that protect the broader social interest. And much of the cost is born at the federal level.

And some of your arguments are downright embarrassing. Examples of suppliers (like asphalt) is ridiculous. All federal programs consume materials that are provided by private contractors, even the military. That isn’t evidence of local control. Especially when the suppliers are paid with federal dollars.

Local government is much more answerable to the local population – at least around here. And the people on local government are much more like volunteers – as they don’t get much if any compensation. So, generally, if you’re suggesting that I’m more supportive of local people spending their money locally, then yes, I’m ok with that. When it get’s too far removed from the source, it becomes a problem.

I knew you couldn’t stay away forever. The way it gets framed here is that I owe my entire existence to the federal government. My job, my property, any money I may be permitted to keep, my talents, everything.
Even the creation of all things are because government made it happen and it couldn’t have happened without it – which is total nonsense. You as a group are voluntarily subjugating yourselves to the state, I’m embarrassed for you. I’m done, 20 to 1 is too much. Not sure what you’re all going to do when the government can’t fund itself anymore with borrowed money – that should be funny.

it’s funny that you guys think we won’t need some form of socialism when there will be 2-4 times the current population and technology will reduce the number of people needed in all forms to do any jobs.

one biproduct of technology is efficiency. why pay a worker when a robot is cheaper in 5 years?

when more than half the world will be unemployed due to scarcity of jobs, there will need to be some system that puts to use the people who do not work.

socialism or some form of it will be necessary when the notion that everyone needs a job no longer applies.

No drivers when transportation becomes automated and error-free. Farms are already super-efficient, what like 1% of US are farmers? And we produce much of the global food supply. With like no workers.

There will always be jobs, but the byprodcut of advancement is doing more with less, and that includes people.

there will be a day when most people DON’T work, and we will need a society that can handle that and what that means.

So where do they get the money to support these people who no longer will need jobs – you prove my point – if there are no producers left, how will you, me or any government welfare be supported. Are you living in some Star Trek fantasy world where money is no longer needed…good luck, we’ll all be dead by then if it happens.

Mark, you try to use a couple specific examples of where government can do good and be part of a solution and try to expand that into something much broader so none of us has ownership, just the state and you try to make it that “we” own it, yeah try that on government property – you are a communist plain and simple, stop acting like some kind of reasonable person – you are not and people like you won’t be happy until the state has control over everything so you can feel like life is perfect – I’ll take imperfect and free any day.

Steve, it sounds like we both have some type of construction job. Both of us work in the private sector. I happen to move from one locale to another throughout the midwest because given the specialized equipment required to build and paint water towers isn’t something that strictly locals could find much less buy. All i’m saying is that you, me, and some guy from oregon helped pay for a tower in noname,NEB. because noname could never afford it by themselves. I am comfortable with this type of socialism because eventually the residents of noname are going to help in paying for the tower in my town.

Ok, if we can be specific about where government can do good, great. General socialism with no limits or restraint is no good in my opinion and leads to government oppression and a take over of our property and lives and less overall freedom. The conversation here has been exhausting and by and large mostly focused on expanded government roles into the private sector – I’m not interested in that at all. If someone could get the conversation to areas that can work with government involvement, fine – but just relying on government dictate and control over everything is a non-starter. And I’m still not sharing my achievements with the federal government or anyone else that didn’t actually contribute effort – although i don’t work on federal government projects at any level, which makes me happy. Locals, not so bad. I can’t go on here, this is tiring.

Definition of SOCIALISM
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

Definition of COMMUNISM
1
a : a theory advocating elimination of private property
b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed.
2
a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production
c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably.